Gary Marcus

Rank 19 of 47
|
Score 64
6/23/2025, 3:16:10 AM
X
In reply to:
Rob Miles (in SF)
@robertskmiles
·
18d
@GaryMarcus @xriskology The tweet makes a specific point about AI 2027, a point which makes no direct reference to your article and would stand alone if you'd never written it
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
18d
@robertskmiles @xriskology the whole point of the tweet was however to call attention to the article.

my experience with the AI 2027 community is that very few are willing to engage with counterarguments; that hardly seems rational with so much at stake.
Rob Miles (in SF)
@robertskmiles
·
18d
@GaryMarcus @xriskology I probably will! But I wasn't replying to the article, I was replying to a tweet, which I read in full
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
18d
@robertskmiles @xriskology my point is that you might want to actually read the article
Rob Miles (in SF)
@robertskmiles
·
18d
@GaryMarcus @xriskology To be clear, I was only replying to what I was replying to. My point is that "more details make stories less likely" is true, but this is inherent to any specific scenario rollout, and the authors (and all sensible readers) understand this
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
18d
@robertskmiles @xriskology thank you for engaging substantively with the specifics of my critique.

The statement is part of a public discourse on the topic of AI and the engagement with counterarguments in the AI 2027 community. The conversation involves a critique of how AI-related discussions are handled, with a focus on the willingness to engage with counterarguments. The tone is critical but not hostile, and the intent is to articulate a point about the nature of discourse in the AI community.

  1. Principle 3:
    I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
    The statement acknowledges the role of the previous comment in prompting a more articulated response, which can be seen as promoting understanding and dialogue. [+1]
  2. Principle 4:
    I will engage in constructive criticism and dialogue with those in disagreement and will not engage in personal attacks or ad hominem arguments.
    The statement engages in constructive criticism by acknowledging the influence of the previous comment in articulating a point, without resorting to personal attacks. [+1]